Jagged Alliance is fairly limited in the number of different types of enemies you will face. Most of the time it's just ordinary humans in various uniforms. You might face giant cats and ugly bugs, but those are few and in between (and not as dangerous as they once were, as the amount of damage our mercs can dish out is a higher than in vanilla). It would be kinda cool to occasionally face tougher enemies, who require different tactics (or at least a lot more dakka).

anv offered a possible solution to this by allowing tanks to move in tactical and join enemy patrols and attacks. However, the step from infantry soldier to tank is somewhat... steep. A tank can only be damaged by explosives and very special ammo, so it is possible that the player forces don't even have the means to destroy the tank - even if it would stop blowing them up from afar or driving over them.

As an intermediate between infantry soldiers and full-sized tanks, we (smeagol, DepressivesBrot and me) have now added combat jeeps as a new enemy type. They fill a similar role to tanks:

they can appear in enemy patrols and assaults, jut like tanks nowadays can (if one allows this in the ini of course).

As combat jeeps are less armored than tanks, they are easier to damage (but still a lot tougher than infantry). With stock settings, AP and SAP anti-material ammo can damage them.

Tanks have a main cannon (item #60) and a Minimi (item #28), combat jeeps only have the Minimi. Note that both have unlimited ammo.

Combat jeeps can destroy structures by driving over them just as tanks do - but can't drive through tough structures, like solid walls.

Combat jeeps can also appear in autoresolve. Jeep pictures by CVB, thank you!

Just like tanks, any enemy formation containing at least one combat jeep will categorically refuse to surrender.

Most tank ini settings are now also used for jeeps - unless explicitly stated in the ini:

;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
; Settings related to enemy armed vehicles (tanks and jeeps).
; Tanks have superior armor that can only be breached by explosives or special ammo. They are armed with a powerful cannon and an MG.
; Enemy jeeps are smaller than tanks, easier to damage and only have an MG, otherwise they perform similar to tanks.
;
; Unless there is a separate setting, tank-settings also govern jeeps.
;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

; If set to TRUE, vehicles can be driven around tactical maps.
ALLOW_DRIVING_VEHICLES_IN_TACTICAL = TRUE

; Deduct APs from passengers when vehicle is moving to prevent exploits (default = 3).
; 0 - No change.
; 1 - AP deducted from vehicle are also deducted from all passengers.
; 2 - AP deducted from vehicle are also deducted from all passengers, but adjusted to initial APs of any given passenger.
; 3 - AP deducted from vehicle are also deducted from all passengers, but only to the certain threshold (default).
AP_SHARED_AMONG_PASSENGERS_AND_VEHICLE_MODE = 3

; If AP_SHARED_AMONG_PASSENGERS_AND_VEHICLE_MODE is set, adjust how much APs will be deducted (0 - 200).
AP_SHARED_AMONG_PASSENGERS_AND_VEHICLE_SCALE = 100

; If set to TRUE, tanks can move around in tactical.
ENEMY_TANKS_CAN_MOVE_IN_TACTICAL = FALSE

; If set to TRUE, cars can run over people.
; Note feature won't be very effective without ALLOW_DRIVING_VEHICLES_IN_TACTICAL set to TRUE.
ALLOW_CARS_DRIVING_OVER_PEOPLE = TRUE

; If set to TRUE, tanks can run over people.
; Note feature won't be very effective without ENEMY_TANKS_CAN_MOVE_IN_TACTICAL set to TRUE.
ALLOW_TANKS_DRIVING_OVER_PEOPLE = TRUE

; If set to TRUE, tanks can use cannon even against single mercs and in perfect health.
ENEMY_TANKS_DONT_SPARE_SHELLS = TRUE
; If set to TRUE, tanks can ignore chance to get through and destroy enemy cover even if it probably won't hit anyone behind it.
ENEMY_TANKS_BLOW_OBSTACLES_UP = TRUE

; If set to TRUE, tanks can be noticed as soon as any part of them is visible.
ENEMY_TANKS_ANY_PART_VISIBLE = FALSE

; If set to TRUE, enemies can use launchables even against single mercs and in perfect health.
ENEMIES_DONT_SPARE_LAUNCHABLES = FALSE
; If set to TRUE, enemies can ignore chance to get through and destroy enemy cover even if it probably won't hit anyone behind it.
ENEMIES_BLOW_OBSTACLES_UP = FALSE

ENEMY_JEEP_RAMMING_MAX_STRUCTURE_ARMOUR is new here. 38 is just slightly beyond sandbags, thus the jeeps wont run over those.

; Depending on game difficulty enemy groups created during offensives can include tanks.
ARMY_USES_TANKS_IN_ATTACKS = TRUE
; Depending on game difficulty enemy patrols at game start can be randomly reinforced with.
ARMY_USES_TANKS_IN_PATROLS = TRUE
; Minimum progress required for tanks to appear.
TANK_MINIMUM_PROGRESS = 60

; Depending on game difficulty enemy groups created during offensives can include jeeps.
ARMY_USES_JEEPS_IN_ATTACKS = TRUE
; Depending on game difficulty enemy patrols at game start can be randomly reinforced with.
ARMY_USES_JEEPS_IN_PATROLS = TRUE
; Minimum progress required for jeep to appear.
JEEP_MINIMUM_PROGRESS = 30

Whether jeeps appear in attacks and patrols is set here, and what progress is required. It is recommend to use a lower progress than for tanks - after all, combat jeeps should logically show up before tanks do.

There have been a few changes in AmmoTypes.xml that are important to modders:

<antiTank> has been removed. It was a boolean that defined whether bullets would do no or full damage to tanks. There was no way to have a mediate between the two, so it has been removed.

There are now new tags for damage against tanks, non-tank-but-armoured-vehicle (like combat jeeps), civilian vehicles, and zombies:

These tags take values between 0.00 and 100.00. Note that when applying damage, these are then multiplied with the existing tags dDamageModifierLife and dDamageModifierBreath.

These tags allow creating special anti-tank (or anti-jeep, or anti-zombie) weaponry.If a xml-editor that is not updated to this change is used, these tags will be removed from the xml. This will result in weapons barely dealing any damage. You have been warned!

Whether the AI assigns combat jeeps and/or tanks can now also additionally be controlled by ASD. In this case, the AI has to buy and fuel the tanks, see [url=]here[/url].

The jeep animations were made at smeag's between late breakfast and vegan muffins coffee time. If you are not happy with them, provide better ones, and I might consider replacing them.

And no, the player or militia cannot use tanks or jeeps himself. Because, among other things, I say so.

This has been added to the trunk in r8114 & GameDir r2305.

This is savegame compatible.

Using a new exe without the appropriate GameDir will cause penguins to enroll in your local fire department.

[Updated on: Mon, 21 March 2016 20:01]

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

@silversurfer: It depends - sometimes it's one LAW, sometimes it' s 2. I didn't change a lot regarding explosions - combat jeeps do however benefit from TANKS_DAMAGE_RESISTANCE_MODIFIER, I might have to change or at least rename that soon-ish. Anti-materiel rifles deal roughly 30 to 55 damage with the new stock values. Given their range and precision, they are perhaps the best counter against these vehicles (AP ammo also deals damage, as seen in the video, but it would take an entire squad to bring down a jeep just by ARs, SR and MGs.

@CVB: Yes, jeeps can be placed in the editor. Combat jeeps are now a new bodytype, with everything that includes, including editor-stuff.
I have no idea why, but I cannot see the video in the post. If you can, then likely the last FF update borked somewhere for me.

sevenfm pointed me to some tank/APC stis in anv's old thread. Perhaps we can replace this jeep with a better version, or even replace the old tank stis (which are missing animations for several directions, which is why tanks move so bizarrely). Not sure, have to see.

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

To make their movement look less awkward, would it be possible to force them to move a certain number of tiles forward before being able to change directions, and only allowing them to do so 45 degrees at a time? Would also allow you to outflank them easier.

To make their movement look less awkward, would it be possible to force them to move a certain number of tiles forward before being able to change directions, and only allowing them to do so 45 degrees at a time? Would also allow you to outflank them easier.

I thought about that. As far as I can tell, this would require an almost separate AI pathing method, and would be a lot more complicated than the current method. Considering what happened the last time someone tried to 'improve' pathing, I'd rather stay away from that.

Also, think about it: How many tile-based games do you know where that is the case?

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

I have only taken a short look at the files last night and don't have access to them atm but I think that the jeep uses the same vehicle ID as tanks (ID 164). Shouldn't it get a separate ID so we can define a separate name ("Tank" doesn't really fit a jeep), separate sounds and - very important - an own armor type? Right now jeeps have the same armor as tanks which might explain why the jeep in the video took two hits to destroy.

Also for ammo I have seen that HEAT does less damage against a jeep than it does to tanks. That doesn't make sense to me. HEAT rounds are the preferred ammo against lighter armored vehicles like APCs.

Also is there a keyboard shortcut to create an enemy jeep in cheat mode? It would be good to have one for testing.

To make their movement look less awkward, would it be possible to force them to move a certain number of tiles forward before being able to change directions, and only allowing them to do so 45 degrees at a time? Would also allow you to outflank them easier.

I thought about that. As far as I can tell, this would require an almost separate AI pathing method, and would be a lot more complicated than the current method. Considering what happened the last time someone tried to 'improve' pathing, I'd rather stay away from that.

Also, think about it: How many tile-based games do you know where that is the case?

None, and it looks just as odd. This way would makes more sense to me, wheeled vehicles can't turn on the spot like most tanks and tracked vehicles. If it'd be a monumental effort to change I can live with it though.

I have only taken a short look at the files last night and don't have access to them atm but I think that the jeep uses the same vehicle ID as tanks (ID 164). Shouldn't it get a separate ID so we can define a separate name ("Tank" doesn't really fit a jeep), separate sounds and - very important - an own armor type? Right now jeeps have the same armor as tanks which might explain why the jeep in the video took two hits to destroy.

Also for ammo I have seen that HEAT does less damage against a jeep than it does to tanks. That doesn't make sense to me. HEAT rounds are the preferred ammo against lighter armored vehicles like APCs.

Also is there a keyboard shortcut to create an enemy jeep in cheat mode? It would be good to have one for testing.

Hmpf. I knew that stuff was good for something. Still have to fill that in then. Though it doesn't exactly make sense - why would vehicles need profile IDs? Let me guess, nobody could be bothered to code a think of a different way to get an ID,so they instead took up valuable space in profiles...

Come to think of it... why don't we just use the bodytype as vehicle IDs? It's different for every type of vehicle, and via code we can make sure only vehicles get one.

An enemy spawned by [Alt] + [b] has a chance to be a jeep, see UINT32 UIHandleNewBadMerc( UI_EVENT *pUIEvent ).

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

Come to think of it... why don't we just use the bodytype as vehicle IDs? It's different for every type of vehicle, and via code we can make sure only vehicles get one.

Answering my own question here, smeagol had valuable insight. RPC vehicles are placed in the map editor via profile. Thus those vehicles need a profile Id from MercProfiles.xml. This is very unfortunate.

Vehicles.xml mostly governs data relating to 'useable' vehicles - face, movement types, seating capabilities. All of that is irrelevant for tanks and combat jeeps. However, armour isn't - even though this doesn't make sense, they are already equipped in void EquipArmouredVehicle( SOLDIERCREATE_STRUCT *pp, BOOLEAN fTank ). I'd really like to change this, so that only player-useable vehicles require Vehicles.xml (and we thus free the tank profile slot), but for now, I need to fill a profile slot for the combat jeep. Let's say... number 71.

Edit: As of r8116 & GameDir r2306, merc profile 71 (formerly the unused RPC71) is now used for the combat jeep. In Vehicles.xml, combat jeeps now get armor similar to kevlar vest as tank has spectra. Note that this is somewhat misleading, as the previously mentioned ammo modifiers are still evaluated. LAWs, however, seem to do a bit more damage - I've tested this several times. Most of the times a single LAW kills a combat jeep, but I've also seen it only deal 72 damage. Seems fair to me - almost but not a guaranteed kill.

[Updated on: Mon, 21 March 2016 23:22]

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

merc profile 71 (formerly the unused RPC71) is now used for the combat jeep

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that slot have special significance as a recruitable character in the code? Or am I simply mistaken in my memory of what I've read about making characters recruitable?

Edit: As of r8116 & GameDir r2306, merc profile 71 (formerly the unused RPC71) is now used for the combat jeep. In Vehicles.xml, combat jeeps now get armor similar to kevlar vest as tank has spectra. Note that this is somewhat misleading, as the previously mentioned ammo modifiers are still evaluated. LAWs, however, seem to do a bit more damage - I've tested this several times. Most of the times a single LAW kills a combat jeep, but I've also seen it only deal 72 damage. Seems fair to me - almost but not a guaranteed kill.

Thank you for the quick update.

Regarding armor - the ammo modifiers are still useful. Ammo has different effects on different armor. With the different modifiers we can still define different effectiveness no matter how "high" the armor value of the target or the damage value of the ammo is. For example HEAT rockets are much more effective against "soft" targets than high power armor piercing rounds.

One more thing came to my mind. When someone fires armor piercing rounds on a lightly armored vehicle there is a chance that it could go through the windows/chassis and hit someone inside. Do you think it would be a good idea to score "lucky hits" that kill the passengers without destroying the vehicle? Of course this would be more useful if we could use the vehicle ourselves. ;-)

Well, the method that requires the least amount of tactic or adaption from the player's side would be mass autofire from his ARs/MGs, which would benefit most from lucky hits. I don't really want to increase the usefulness of that - after all, we now finally have something in which those huge anti-material rifles truly shine.

Saren threw his head back and screamed in impotent fury, before falling to his throne, head in his claws, trembling in horrified disbelief.

Then he heard a faint chime as Sovereign subscribed to her ECHO channel.

If you want, you can donate to me. This will not affect how and what I code, and I will not code specific features in return. I will be thankful though.

Well, the method that requires the least amount of tactic or adaption from the player's side would be mass autofire from his ARs/MGs, which would benefit most from lucky hits. I don't really want to increase the usefulness of that - after all, we now finally have something in which those huge anti-material rifles truly shine.

I understand. I was just hoping to finally get another vehicle to drive in. ;-)
My idea could have been restricted to guns that can do a certain minimum amount of damage so ARs, MGs or anything smaller than that are out of the picture. No big deal. The combat jeep feature is already fantastic as it is.

i have a gameplay problem with a jeep because it arrived before i could obtain better weapons (rev8156 - the strategy was direct sneak attack to Drassen Mine).

I know I can adjust damage ratings to get rid of it.

But I also have noticed the following:
- there is an option to patch an explosive to the jeep
- this action seems to cost 50ap

So i sneaked behind it (it's stationary) while other team taunting it.

IMP with tnt & time detonator was behind and side of it. Couldn't apply the charge. Always getting the message "not enough AP", but of course having much more AP then 50. Tried prone, crouched, standing. Perhaps the jeep grid is unreachable?

Also I wanted to know if the jeep could flee if it was set to moveable (and if not it should be able to, shouldn't it?)

This my first encounter with jeep when i night assault cambria mine and was reinforce by a jeep unit adjacent to the mine. I watched your youtube video the jeep moves and shoot but this jeep i encounter doesnt even move from the spawn point at the edge of map.

Does vehicle moves in tactical map?? or just a stationary sitting duck to be shot.

This my first encounter with jeep when i night assault cambria mine and was reinforce by a jeep unit adjacent to the mine. I watched your youtube video the jeep moves and shoot but this jeep i encounter doesnt even move from the spawn point at the edge of map.

Does vehicle moves in tactical map?? or just a stationary sitting duck to be shot.

Thank you and all modders out there for all the excellent modding.

Check your options file, moving of jeeps is probably governed by the same setting as tanks, so

; If set to TRUE, tanks can move around in tactical.
ENEMY_TANKS_CAN_MOVE_IN_TACTICAL = TRUE

The setting in the config file for progress score required to encounter them is set at 30 and does not seem to be able to be changed - is it automatically half of the progress score required for Tanks (which is 60) or is it in another another file. [I hope this makes sense!]

Unfortunately I cannot the ASD_ACTIVE to TRUE as it is unchangeable in the same way that JEEP_MINIMUM_PROGRESS is. I am playing UC and it is the UC/1.13 ini file I am trying to change. Is there some other predecessor setting that needs to be enabled first? Note that I can drive my own my own jeep [GAZ] around the tactical map and that is great!

Trying to use the ini editor that nobody ever bothers to update the definition files for, I presume. Solution: Use a text editor, the ini file should be in Data-UC113 (or similar, don't have UC here to check) in your case.